Ooh step back, India Willoughby is going to penetrate the Mumsnet debate

[ALittleBitOfButter]

Just saw on twitter that IW says will do radio interview about Mumsnet. Sorry can't link as on phone.

YetAnotherSpartacus

Not feeling well and really confused. What are people being censored for now? Can someone be more direct?

It's about use of the words male and man and how they're applied.

I hope you're feeling a bit better and it's not stress.

ek I have no idea if Conchita is an ‘authentic life’ or an act. But if it’s an act, we wouldn’t really be okay with the BBC reporting that Dane Edna or Lily Savage were ill, would we?

And in any case, I’m sure CW falls under stonewall’s trans definition even if that’s not how CW sees CWself.

Thanks Datun. No not stress. Just feeling bleah. Where has this been said? Or is it one of those private messages to fenders things again?

And in any case, I’m sure CW falls under stonewall’s trans definition even if that’s not how CW sees CWself.

This has always bothered me, the ability to define one's own gender being vitally important versus if someone doesn't define their gender the way TRAs would like them to then they're wrong (about themselves).

an individual who was born male but wishes to be identified as a woman
Would also be considered transphobic by the trans activists who object to 'male' because they don't allow that they have been born male, or have male bodies, or merely wish to be identified as women. Trans women ARE women. Even using the prefix trans is sometimes called out as transphobic because TRANSWOMEN ARE WOMEN.
We are talking about people who have never had female internal organs but who through mere identification alone say that one day they will be able to give birth to children. Who claim that a doctor could examine their body and identify them as female. Who claim with regularity that there are more woman than 'cis' women.

They object to us using 'women' for ourselves when discussing our bodiws without acknowledging they are also women and so not acknowledging that some women have penises. They object to us using prefixes like natal or biological.

At what point are we allowed to draw a line? How can we speak without causing offense in these circumstances?

Thinking about this area of debate, I can't help remembering the fantastic article by Debbie Hayton where she pointed out (having been a teacher for many years) how the more you dictate to people how to think, the more they'll push back (paraphrasing). And I am more than happy to refer to her as she as I know how much she understands the difficulties with all of this for women and does not deny her biological sex nor her past. As does Miranda, Seven Hex and Dawn Rose. And perhaps that's philosophically hiccuped but I don't care, they all make fantastic sense for their own rights and those of women I don't think that made sense but I'm multitasking

I completely understand and agree 100% that we should not have to police pronouns or the words man and male. I also agree that it's damaging to the discourse.

It's a slippery slope and there's not a single part of it I don't loathe or think is a backwards step.

But, the same issue has been waxing and waning on this site since before Spartacus.

And we have still managed to spread the word, gain support, and raise the profile of women's rights.

The tide has turned and the oxygen that is coming towards this debate is so close and so big, I can taste it.

The fact we are being targeted tells you everything you need to know about our success.

We can, of course, still say you can't change sex, men can't also be women, an adult human male who produces sperm can't also be an adult human female who produces eggs. It's impossible.

And, as ever, we can still say that what someone has said is a pile of wank instead of saying they're a massive wanker.

I don't agree with this fresh tightening up of policy, yes it's damaging.

But believe me, I am determined to make absolutely certain that I don't lose the opportunity to say so.

YetAnotherSpartacus

angryattackkittens I believe, was emailed an official telling off by HQ for misapplying the word man or male. But as the post has been deleted, I'm not sure.

Is that right AAK?

It's the inconsistency that's bugging people, (along with the obvious denial of biology).

Although, I think it's probably pertinent to remember that the equality act says if someone says they are trans, then the correct pronouns ought to be used.

Obviously the equality act was designed to prevent people from harassing someone about their natal sex. Not to censor discussion about the very concept.

But since transactivists have lots of money and like to leverage their 'strategic litigation', it will all be a little opaque unless, or until, it goes to court.

Thanks whoever mentioned Debbie Hayton - she talks a lot of sense on her blogs. I wish we heard more voices like hers.

We are left with no language. We are being backed into a corner and made to comply.

Yes and it is bloody exhausting to be honest. The goal posts change so frequently we will soon be left with no option than to shut up.

Rosenberg got one also, though I think the specifics they were objecting to were a little different. Was it still the word "male", Rosenberg?

On the JHB twitter thread people are posting screenshots of MN claiming they are transphobic.

Its hard to see how anyone could come to that conclusion on the basis of what's been posted.

It's shining a light on what activists think/deem transphobia to be - seemingly pretty much anything that deviates from their position.

I was told that two of my posts were deleted for using the word 'male' to describe two people who are not female in relation to also noting that the behaviour displayed by and the privilege given to said people was an example of the sexist imbalance in power relations between males and females (I was more specific but I'm trying not to repeat the deleted posts).

The email further said that in describing the person as male that this could be construed as calling those people men (which I was careful not to do).

I was then asked to be "as mindful as possible of not offending anyone" and to drop them a line back to confirm that I was happy to get "on board" with that.

Which I did but I also asked for advice in how to discuss these power relations between the sexes without mentioning sex. Then I saw that AAK had said they had also had posts deleted for saying 'male' and so I asked for advice here as above.

I still don't know how it is possible to have a discussion about this without using the word male for people who aren't female. Or if saying they aren't female will cause just as much offense. Given that it is nearly impossible to have any feminist discussion without offending some person (usually male) somewhere I am a bit lost really.

Where is the transphobia in this example? Is it just that the poster said that there are differences between the sexes?

pbs.twimg.com/media/Da6rumYX0AEq7mc.jpg

I assume that

1. they said there are differences between the sexes (transphobic because sex is a construct and gender is real, maybe?)
2. they said that it should be okay to exclude one sex from certain communications between the other sex

??

The email further said that in describing the person as male that this could be construed as calling those people men (which I was careful not to do).I was then asked to be "as mindful as possible of not offending anyone" and to drop them a line back to confirm that I was happy to get "on board" with that.

I got this too, along with a note about how they know it can be hard
to word opinions in a way that won't "draw reports" and to please look at the two threads in which this was debated recently. Except I was in both of those threads and don't recall us collectively agreeing that the word "male" was a problem and we'd stop using it.

It sounds like we had basically the same email AAK.

The worst part tbh for me was being asked to say I was 'happy' to get on board, rather than just that I would because I had been asked to for the good of MN in general. I felt it was a bit 'eat shit and pretend you like it'. But the email was polite and so I don't think it was intended to be read that way.

Just listened to IW saying that transgender groups have approached Mumsnet and all been rejected over the years. What a blatant load of bullshit! Not a very credible person when the first statement is made up.

Then goes on to ridicule comments about sex predators.

Complains Julia doesn't see people as the gender they identify. Well no, cos identity is an inner feeling, Stonewall told us, it's in writing all over the place, and we can't see an inner feeling? We really can't. Really, really, really, can't see your identity when it's an inner feeling. Nope can't see it? Can see your body though, that biological thing.

Total bollocks.

The JHB Twitter thread is excellent, happy someone is calling their bluff. I'm sure the TRAs do believe it's transphobic, but other people aren't seeing that.

Complains Julia doesn't see people as the gender they identify.

If full control of women's speech is achieved then full control of our thoughts will be the new goal. This is why I keep saying that we have to draw a line at some point!

I don't see how taking moderation actions on people saying 'male' is going to lead to less work moderating tbh? Wouldn't it be easier to just tell whoever is reporting those posts that continuing to waste moderators time will be treated unfavourably?

Julia can't find any:

"@ IndiaWilloughby hi India, on my @ talkRADIO show this morning you claimed Mumsnet users were posting transphobic comments on the site. I can’t find any. Please can you tweet or DM the links to the comments which you found offensive? Thanks."

Just listened to IW saying that transgender groups have approached Mumsnet and all been rejected over the years. What a blatant load of bullshit! Not a very credible person when the first statement is made up

To be fair to IW I think this is actually true. I'm sure that I have seen Trans Media Watch saying they had been trying to have a meeting with MNHQ.

To be clear, I think the engagement with trans identifying people that IW refers to is groups who have approached MNHQ with the kind offer to educate them out of their transphobic ways.

Hillariously some of the goadiest trolls and busiest of TRAs who have played such an active role in shutting down meetings, spreading lies about women and no doubt have been targeting Mumsnet have now all queued up to comment. If a decent journalist spent a couple of hours looking at their twitter history we might then all be able to get on discussing the implications of GRA like adults..... O but maybe that's the plan?

India Willoughby is a good example of a person whose life revolves around a central lie to the extent that truth ceases to be a meaningful concept. The truth is whatever IW wants it to be.